Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 517 posts

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#231

Post by JohnFen »

bgirard wrote: post #97

I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up like prop 65 cancer warnings, or cookie banners. The intention might be to separate believable but low quality hallucinated AI content spam from high quality manual content. But it will backfire like prop 65. You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in all parts of the content creation pipeline. I see YouTube's own guidelines in the article and they se…

> You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in all parts of the content creation pipeline.

Which would be OK with me, personally. Right now, those cookie banners do serve a valuable function for me -- when I see them, I know to treat the site with caution and skepticism. If AI warnings end up similar, they too will serve a similar purpose. It's all better than nothing.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#232

Post by xp84 »

jcalx wrote: post #158
bombcar wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what will happen, just like with cookie warnings, etc. To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. Otherwise you stick a prop 65 "may contain" warning on everything, and it's pointless. (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI notification complications.)

This will make AI the new sesame allergen [1] — if you aren't 100% certain every asset you use isn't AI-generated, then it makes sense to stick some AI-generated content in and label the video accordingly, out of compliance. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/30/1196640...

Wow. This is an awesome education on why you can’t just regulate the world into what you want it to be without regard to feasibility. I’m sure the few who are allergic are mad, but it would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board - which is the only effective and fair way to guarantee that this approach couldn’t ever be used to comply with these laws. There isn’t much out there that somebody isn’t allergic to or intolerant of.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#233

Post by alickz »

DylanDmitri wrote: post #48
nosvince wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and many have done exactly the same kind of video using VFX. What's the difference? These kind of reactions remind me of the stories of the backlash following the introduction of calculators in schools...

Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved. VFX requires more expertise to do convincingly and realistically, in the thousands of hours of experience. More involved scenes require multiple professionals. The tooling and assets costs more. An inexperienced person, in a hundred hours of effort, can put out 10ish realistic scenes with leading edge AI tools, when previously they could do 0. This is like regulating h…

What if new AI tools negate the thousands of hours experience to generate realistic VFX scenes, so now realistic scenes can be made by both non-AI VFX experts and AI-assisted VFX laymen?

Do we make all usages of VFX now require a warning, just in case the VFX was generated by AI?

I think this is different to the bow v gun metaphor as I can tell an arrow from a bullet, but I can foresee a future where no human could tell the difference between AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted VFX / art

I believe this is evidenced by the fact that people can go around accusing any art piece of being AI art and the burden of proving them wrong falls on the artist. Essentially I believe we are rapidly approaching the point of it not mattering if someone uses AI in their art because people won't be able to tell anyway

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#235

Post by JohnFen »

oaktowner wrote: post #201
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who is bothered by calling this phenomenon "hallucinating"? It's marketing-speak and corporate buzzwords to cover for the fact that their LLMs often produced wrong information because they aren't capable of understanding your request, nuance, or the training data it used is wrong, or the model just plain sucks. Would we tolerate such doublespeak it were anything else? "Well, you ordered a side of fr…

I can't stand it being called "hallucinating" because it anthropomorphizes the technology. This isn't a conciousness that is "seeing" things that don't exist: it's a word generator that is generating words that don't make sense (not in a syntactic sense, but in a semantic sense). Calling it "hallucination" implies that there are (other) moments when it is understanding the world correctly -- and that itself is not tr…

This. It's not "hallucination", it's "error".

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#236

Post by JohnFen »

lucianbr wrote: post #191
dartos wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hallucinate" is definitely marketing. it translates to "Creates text which contains incorrect or invalid information" The latter just doesn't sound as good in headlines/articles/tutorials (eg. marketing material).

So if I replied to your comment with "you are incorrect" I would be putting you in a worse light than saying "you are hallucinating"? The second is making it sound better? Doesn't feel that way to me.

My problem with "hallucination" isn't that it makes error sound better or worse, it's that it makes it sound like there's a consciousness involved when there isn't.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#237

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mazlix wrote: post #213
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI tags are fundamentally useless. The premise is that it would prevent someone from misleading you by thinking that something happened when it didn't, but someone who wants to do that would just not tag it then. Which is where the real abuse comes in: You post footage of a real event and they say it was AI, and ban you for it etc., because what actually happened is politically inconvenient. And the only way to p…

I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they represent real events. If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake. Also since no one likes RAW footage it…

> If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake.

At which point nobody could verify anything that happened with any existing camera, including all past events as of today and all future events captured with any existing camera.

Then someone will publish a way to extract the key from some new camera model, both allowing anyone to forge anything by extracting a key and using it to sign whatever they want, and calling into question everything actually taken with that camera model/manufacturer.

Meanwhile cheap cameras will continue to be made that don't even support RAW, and people will capture real events with them because they were in hand when the events unexpectedly happened. Which is the most important use case because footage taken by a staff photographer at a large media company with a professional camera can already be authenticated by a big corporation, specifically the large media company.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#238

Post by pixl97 »

katbyte wrote: post #136
schoen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Prop 65 warnings are probably unhelpful even when accurate because they don't show anything about the level of risk or how typical or atypical it is for a given context. (I'm thinking especially about warnings on buildings more than on food products, although the same problem exists to some degree for food.) It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn…

While you may think it didn’t have an effect a recent 99pi episode covered it and it sounds like it has definitely motivated many companies to remove chemicals from their products. It’s not perfect but it has had a positive effect https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-...

But does it actually benefit the customer?

Like is it one of those things the remove a 1 in a billion chance of cancer, and now have a product that wears out twice as fast leading to a doubling of sales?

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#239

Post by JohnFen »

jjcm wrote: post #45
jjcm wrote: post #37

I think it's smart to start trying things here. This has infinite flaws with it, but from a business and learnings standpoint it's a step toward the right direction. Over time we're going to both learn and decide what is and isn't important to designate as "AI" - Google's approach here at least breaks this into rules of what "AI" things are important to label: • Makes a real person appear to say or do something they…

One black hat thing I'm curious about though is whether or not this tag can be weaponized. If I upload a real event and tag it as AI, will it reduce user trust that the real event ever happened?

I fear that we're barrelling fast toward a future when nobody can trust anything at all anymore, label or not.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#240

Post by zhoujianfu »

whoopdedo wrote: post #226

I'd like a content ID system for AI generated media. If someone tries to pass an image to me as authentic I can check its hash against a database that will say "this was generated by such-and-such LLM on 18 Mar 2024." Maybe even add a country of origin.

These guys are doing something sort of in that vein.. https://wolfsbane.ai/
Post reply on HN